The Trish Regan Show - 🚨 LIVE: Maddow’s DOOMED? NBC’s $30M Defamation Payout—Producers FIRED, Rachel NEXT?

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

NBC News was just forced to pay up for some massive MSNBC mistakes in a defamation suit against the company. Rachel’s production team was fired in the process leaving some to ask if Rachel Maddow is next in line. We discuss. Meanwhile, Letitia James says she’s looking to charge President Donald Trump for insider trading after he recommended people buy stocks as they plunged. Whoopi Goldberg just sided with Trump... seriously! What on earth is going on at 'The View'?And, with AOC getting ready to assume Democrat Party leadership, James Carville has a message for her — GET LOST. That plus much more in today’s edition of the Trish Regan Show. Join me! SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL: https://Youtube.com/TrishReganChannel Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join🟢For independent views on the market - sign up for my financial newsletter The 76report at:▶️ https://76research.com with CODE: DOLLAR today. Today’s show is sponsored by: 🟢https://TrishLovesGold.com — American Hartford Gold — go to: ▶️ Https://TrishLovesGold.com or TEXT TRISH to 65532 to receive up to $15,000 in free silver with American Hartford Gold or go to https://TrishLovesGold.com. You can also use Trish's name when calling 1-844-495-1115. 🟢 Go to ▶️ https://balanceofnature.com and use CODE: TRISH for 35% off and FREE SHIPPING Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And we are live. Wow, lots going on right now. Rachel Maddo's job looking like increasingly, it is on the line. Lots of rumors swirling. I'm going to get into this because you see, her company there that she works for apparently just settled a big defamation lawsuit to the tune of almost as much money or perhaps as much money as Rachel Maddo makes in a year. We're going to get into all the gory details on that one.

Plus, Democrats are demanding the release of that Maryland migrant. it's really amazing how much they're coming forward for this guy. I mean, it's just, I'm just going to go out on the limb and say maybe it doesn't look the best in that they're really working hard for somebody who is attached to a criminal gang, but yet not trying to really do enough for the people themselves. I mean, while Whoopi Goldberg suddenly siding with Donald Trump, like, what world am I living in here? Do you know? I don't know. I mean, this is getting a little weird. Whoopi Goldberg moments ago, well, a couple hours ago, came out and sided with Trump, I've got to show you this video. It's going to blow you away. We're like living in some strange new world. Anyway, the big story here as well today is that Leticia James is looking for new angles and new angles and new angles. So just moments ago, she came out and said that she is going to seek to charge him for insider trading. You know, I got a lot to say on that one. Welcome to this show. Good to have you here. Big news coming out of NBC. You see, they had to have that legal settlement. We talked about it a little bit in yesterday's program, but now, guys, it's getting

ratcheted up because a lot of people are looking around and saying, wait a second, we're trying to settle some $30 million defamation lawsuit that was brought on by none other than one of our major talents. And that would be, of course, Rachel Matta, who was all over this story, all over this story right from the get-go. And in fact, so much so that this guy's lawyer, the doctor's lawyer that was defamed by MSNBC, she's a Democrat. And she's coming out saying Rachel Mado is like the worst, right? She's so disillusioned. She's so disgusted by everything.

So just to refresh your memory, we're going to get to Rachel's job in just a second. All her producers have been fired. So now she's basically last man standing. Before we get to that, just to remind you what was at stake here, they had come out on MSNBC a series of anchors, Chris Hayes, kind of Rachel's, you know, little look-like, it's like the mini-me, and then there's another woman that's in the afternoon, and they had all done this reporting on these so-called uterus robbers down in Georgia that were taking the uteruses from migrants. So you can see kind of a sexy headline, right?

Except, you know, if it's not true, you're going to have a problem. And that's what was discovered. So the judge in this case said that MSNBC hosts were making verifiably false statements about Dr. Amin, including claims of mass hysterectomies leading to the cancellation of the scheduled trial. The thing was supposed to go to trial, like next week. And so now they have settled this, and they've settled it, allegedly, for a whole lot of money, which has some people internally like looking around and saying, wait a second, isn't this woman the one who championed this story, here she is, she somehow managed to clean up her Twitter files. I'll tell you, it's very interesting, very interesting how she approached this,

because she seems to be the main person in all of this. And yet, when you go on to Twitter and you look, you can find sound bites from the likes of Chris Hayes, you can find sound bites from Nicole Wallace, but it's more challenging to find anything there with Rachel Maddow. So she must have had her team do a deep dive and clean this thing up. Here she is, just a screenshot talking about the story at the Georgia Ice Detention Center with another lookalike. I mean, wow, like everybody wants to look like Rachel talking about living in an alternative universe. It's almost as bad as whoopee wanting to back Trump in something. I'm going to play that sound coming up, but here we go. Here is the statement that came out yesterday in which the Democrat attorney, Stacey Evans,

really slammed MSNBC's coverage of her client, Dr. Amin, calling the network's host Rachel Maddo reporting on the so-called, quote-unquote, uterus collector case preposterous and disappointing. She said that she actually watched the network a lot. Imagine that. Your idol, Rachel Maddov. She turns out to be a bit more corrupt than you ever thought. I mean, look, this woman is toxic for MSNBC. I've said it all along. I could never believe it. I would check out. her show occasionally because you know this is what we're in the media business do and I read everything and I watch everything and I'd say wow like this is really conspiratorial they think it's the right wing conspiracy all the time well all you have to do is go watch MSNBC with one rachel mad on you're

going to get your dose of conspiracy theory every single night now they had to bring her back it's like for sweeps or something right they got to bring her back because first hundred days in the administration what are we going to do if we don't have rachel maddow there she um has a slimmer team shall we say, in part maybe because of this as they were getting closer to the trial date, which didn't happen because they did settle the case, she actually lost her entire production team. Right around the same time, I should point out that Joy Reed lost her gig. Remember when Rachel came out and she's so mad and she's telling the bosses off. She didn't say a damn thing about her own team, but she somehow was all worked up about Joy Reed. I suspect that was more about

playing to the camera and playing to the audience base. Oh my gosh, this is terrible. We're losing Joy Reid, a woman of color, this is unacceptable. She didn't say squat about her own team that was getting fired and missed all of this, right? Well, this story, just to go back, it's twisted and weird, but basically MSNBC says pretty terrible things about this doctor, accusing him, He apparently performed two hysterectomies on people who needed these hysterectomies, accusing him of like stealing women's wounds. So it's playing into all these various stereotypes that would scare people, the fear-mongering, and as I said, the conspiracy theory stuff that she loves to promote. Here's Chris Hayes talking about the story. Tonight, we can report there are three women who say they had procedures they either did not consent to ahead of time or felt coercion.

into consenting to. Tonight, we can bring you part of an exclusive interview with one of those women detained at that very facility who says she felt pressured into a full abdominal hysterectomy by this doctor. The woman is in immigration proceedings and fears for her status, so we are calling her B and not showing her face. She was in the Irwin County Detention Center during the Trump administration. We've reviewed medical records that corroborate that she had this procedure. She went to this doctor, who NBC News has identified as Dr. Mahendra Amin and OBGYN in nearby Douglas, Georgia. We are aware of the whistleblower's allegations as they relate to Dr. Amin, and Dr. Amin has issued a statement saying we are aware of the whistleblowers' statements as they relate to Dr. Amin,

and he vehemently denies them. We look forward to all the facts coming out and are confident that once they do, Dr. Amin will be cleared of any wrongdoing. Here is how B described her experience with that doctor at the facility. I felt like I had no right to say anything. They just, Dr. Amanda, just told me, listen, you're going to get hysterectomy done.

And schedule an appointment for that. And then, I had no, I had nothing, no saying this. And then you, you did go and you did, he did perform a full hysterectomy on you. He said to remove the cancerous tissue. Yes. That's what he, I was told. Okay.

Okay. And the doctor's like, yeah, I saved her life. But MSNBC turns this into something else entirely. They went out and they found a nurse who's the alleged whistleblower in this case, who's also talking about how extraordinary this was. I don't think this woman knew what she was talking about. The problem for MSNBC is they definitely didn't know what they were talking about, whether it be Rachel Maddow, whether it be Chris Hayes, the little mini-me,

or whether it be the four-clock show with the woman with the long blonde hair. you would be reprimanded. Did you have cases of COVID in that facility? What were the steps taken to deal with it as the outbreak in the country happened? When we first had the first case of COVID then the facility, it was COVID is not here in the facility. Then we had another case and it was like COVID was not here in the facility. We had several more cases and it was like COVID was not here in the facility. You know, there was not a proper separation.

of those detainees whenever they come in. You know, there's a 14-day incubation period. No, they weren't separated. You know, whenever you question and then you didn't have the proper PPE, I admit I refuse. I have sick of cell. I have kids that have underlying conditions as well.

They're asthmatics. So the protocol was not being followed. It was not properly reported to the health department. It was not properly reported to the CDC, nor was it properly reported to LaSalle. You were essentially demoted, as my understanding, from the complaint, right? That from a full-time employee to a more kind of at-will swing employee, your contention is that that was essentially punishment for your statements about the unsafe environment you felt there,

your resistance to working when you had symptoms. Is that my understanding correct there? Yes, that's correct. Mr. what do you look like you want to say something what do you want to say? Well, I did want to jump in and say that Ms. Routen

has been a vocal you know, critic of the conditions within the facility for, you know, for many months and the, you know, the most recent retaliation. Okay, anyway, this is the woman

that, as you can see, down Wooten, who said that these hysterectomies were being performed allegedly in mass, and then she went on television, and for whatever reason, MSNBC just decided to buy it, right? Like, they didn't bother to do any kind of double-checking, it seems, if you look at what the lawyer's saying, and she finds Rachel Maddow to be one of the worst, because I guess it was a good story. Maybe they didn't think anybody would get that upset? Well, this lawyer, rightly so, is upset. So it brings into question, exactly is going to happen to Rachel now. Again, you know that her producers are gone. She didn't

say anything. David, David, I saw you. Yeah, she didn't offer any pay for the producers, any kind of settlement there. I just think that they're going to have challenges, if you would, with this entire operation moving forward, the entire operation, because they have lost, they're at MSNBC, the trust of the people. They have. They've lost it at CNN. They've lost it at ABC. They've lost it at CBS. They've lost it in a lot of places. And this Democrat lawyer who was representing the doctor that Rachel Mato went over, she's the one who's saying, for goodness sakes, this is sensationalism over facts. Imagine that, the media choosing sensationalism over facts. She said, and I quote, that it was disappointing that any media outlet would be so reckless in its reporting,

describing the coverage as, quote, a classic example of chasing sensationalism. over facts. So the question then becomes, what does it mean for Rachel Maddow, for Comcast, for NBC, for MSNBC, and for Spingo? I think the handwriting's on the wall, frankly, guys, NBC, Comcast doesn't want anything to do with this. They don't want anything to do with Rachel Maddell. They don't want anything to do with MSNBC. They don't want anything to do with the headaches that it all causes, which is why you've got Comcast spinning off these cable networks in this so-called SpinCo. But can Spinco actually afford somebody like Rachel if it's in fact true? I liked how Trump was talking about that the other day and he's like, well, they say they pay her 30 million bucks.

I don't find that. I can't believe they would pay her 30 million. I mean, I can't believe it either, but you know, we may get some more intel on this as the company goes public because we're going to have to see where exactly all the money's going. And are they really spending $30 million on somebody who was just doing a show once a week? What is that about? I will say this. I don't think they're going to be spending it much longer. I think investors are going to demand some accountability.

Investors are not going to like that they're out there really-nilly reporting on things that aren't totally buttoned up. And investors are definitely not going to like that you got a woman with a not very well-rated show because nobody cares about what she's got to spin these days. It turns out she was wrong on everything, including Russia, Russia, Russia, and the Hunter-Bosser. and laptop and the idea that somehow that virus couldn't possibly come from Wuhan, China in the lab, everybody realizes she was wrong on everything. So what kind of audiences she left with? Not a very big one. And so how do you justify $30 million a year when you're settling cases because you're

defaming someone and you're settling them for some $30 million a year? The reality is they can't afford her. They won't be able to afford her in this new, brave new world. Now, there are some people that are excited about this. I mean, I saw the CNBC reporter when it came out. And I guess what is he going to say, right? You know, he's not Rachel taking name of the bosses as she did when Roy, Joy Reed was let go. But Andrew Ross Sorkin was trying to spin it like, oh, this is going to be great.

We're going to have all this capital coming in to invest in us, and we're going to become something new and great and wonderful. You're cable. Okay, buddy, you're cable. And that's all you need to know. Cable's kind of done. Cable's kind of over. You think about what we're doing right here right now, right? On this little show where we're just growing and growing and growing,

and it's just you and me and, you know, a few little graphics here and there. But it's a much more, dare I say, slimly run organization without all the middle management on all the headaches that come with working for a big news organization. And I think that investors are going to get. a little frustrated when they realize how much is going to salaries and production costs in an industry that is dying. So if you told me, well, we're going to reinvent this and we're going to become a streaming network, I'd say, okay, you know, I'm kind of interested, but they can't do that. You know why they can't do that? Because of all the cable agreements that pay them,

it's like this catch-22, right? They get all this money coming in the door from the cable agreements, but the cable agreements specifically say, guess what? You can't stream live. So how can you be a news organization these days and not be streaming live? You don't have much of a future or not a future where you can spend $30 million on somebody's salary. We haven't even talked about what they're probably spending on Morning Joe. But I can tell you this. CNBC, where I used to work, that place prints money. Still, they make a lot of money at CNBC.

They may not have a very big audience, but you know what? They're charging a lot for those ads, and they make a lot of money on those ads. They don't make as much, and they cannot make as much in this environment over at MSNBC, which means, yes, the Morning Joe's of the world, yes, the Rachel Maddows of the world, anybody who's commanding a big salary there at NBC is now suddenly in jeopardy. In this new spin-co world where suddenly investors are going to be a whole lot more demanding, and you don't have just a big piggy bank of mom and dad over at Comcast to be able to go to. Yeah.

Unbelievable. Gosh, you know what, guys, we have some breaking news that I want to get to right now. This is just coming in, sort of fresh, hot off the presses, and I'm looking at it sort of out of the corner of my eye as I speak with you. Breaking right now, an advisor to Pete Hegseth is being pushed out at the Pentagon. Pete Hagseth, you know, head of the Department of Defense, one of his advisors is believed to have been leaking, possibly to the press, and he was just escorted out of the Department of Defense. The story is being reported by Reuters. Reuters first of the story, the gentleman's name that was being or is being escorted out there at Department of Defense, worked for Hegseth, and his name is Dan Caldwell. He, we don't know too much about him other than let me just show you this.

Breaking right now, this headline exclusive Top Hexeth advisor, Dan Caldwell put on leave in Pentagon leak probe. So that's an issue. Here's his picture right now that you can see. This is the gentleman. He is allegedly somehow tied up in this leaking issue that they had going on. Don't forget, they began an investigation into the Pentagon and into potential leaks. Why? Because of that signal gate issue.

And according to USA Today, this is just coming out now. This particular gentleman, if you look down this list, here's a list of all the people that were on the signal gate chat. And we just found this for you. And you can see that Dan Caldwell was on that list. So naturally, they were going back and they were. were investigating who might have leaked something to the press, we don't know, or who might have had a hand getting some of that information in there. We don't really know. I think that's still up for grabs. Remember Mike Waltz saying that he and his team had created that list

of people that were on there, again, going back to this list. And so I think they were reviewing everybody that was on that list, and they were trying to make sure things were airtight. And somehow this guy is caught up in something. We're not entirely sure at this point yet, what, but he is being escorted out of the building. Now, before everybody goes bonkers and says, oh, that's not fair, you know, why are you getting rid of the alleged spy? He doesn't deserve that, etc. I'm going to remind you that this White House needs to batten down the hatches, okay, because we can't have a repeat of what went on for four years. And so they've got to find the leakers. They've got to find the people that are problems, so to speak.

They've got to find the people that are not on board. It's one thing to have an internal dispute. Like if I were working at Treasury, I would have said, let's put Peter Navarro aside, let's put Scott Basson, center stage, let's make sure that we do this in a way that doesn't cause total chaos in the markets and cause a 10-year yield to go through the roof. So that's an internal policy debate. It's something else if you're out there calling the press and then saying, oh, you know, I don't like this one, that one, and the other.

That's a whole other thing. And I think that's what is feared right now because they went through tons of that. They had all the Obama loyalists that they got hit with in 2016. So they need to make sure that they don't have that all over again. It's why, if you think about it, why they got rid of that Susan Myers up in Greenland? Remember the Space Force commander that was just last week who said right out there in an email that she did not agree at all with the policy that the administration was putting forward? Well, if you don't agree with the policy, then guess what?

You probably shouldn't have the job. So they relieved her of her duties. It comes as we learn that the head of the NSA got kicked out. He was also the guy in charge of cyber command. So it's all a result of the signal gate thing. They're very worried. There's a certain level of, I'm just going to call it healthy paranoia there, because given what this team went through for four years last time around,

I think they want to make sure that everybody is on the up and up. You know, Laura Lumer, she was on this from the beginning. She's been saying, okay, we're going to vet people. She's been tagged and blamed for the NSA chief being out. I don't know as you can entirely buy that. I think that this is just frankly common sense on behalf of the president who's saying, I need to make sure that I have my people in there. And this particular NSA director, I know that they say the mill,

personnel are not partisan in any way, but keep in mind that Timothy Haugh was a Millie guy and had been put there champion by Millie and by Biden. And so I can see Donald Trump saying, I need to make sure that I have my own people around me. You can see Pete Heggsess saying, I need to make sure that I have my own people around me. And if anybody here is responsible for leaks to the press, then guess what, we're going to have to clean house. So this was Laura Lumer. or not too long ago actually on another podcast speaking about the importance of vetting. Let's just listen in. I just think that there needs to be more appreciation demonstrated to Trump loyalists because

unfortunately we do see a lot of gatekeeping in the GOP. And the thing that I harped on the most during the campaign season was, you know, the importance of vetting, vetting, vetting. We need to vet people so that we don't have the same nightmare that we saw happen in the first administration where people who are disloyal to President Trump at the current. favor once the election's over after you know shit talking in the entire election season and then they just get to go oh you know what uh i'm gonna i'm gonna i'm gonna sneak in and uh i'm gonna reap all the benefits and the glory and the praise of getting a white house job sure i thought that we were

keeping a binder full of receipts i don't know if some of the people on the campaign meant it when they said they were keeping the receipts but i meant it yeah i literally have a binder of receipts and i know who's loyal and i know who is disloyal so She's not wrong, right? And I say this with, think about it like a business. If you're the CEO of a company, you want to make sure that you have your people, your peeps on your teams. Do you really want people conspiring against you or leaking this, that, and the other? You don't. And you can't have that. And so part of his job as president is to go in and to figure out where the problems are and to root that out. Now, I'm not saying, again, that there can't be room for dissent. We need

dissent. That's important. You don't want a bunch of yes people around you. all the time. He's willing to listen to other opinions. Heck, you know, didn't Marr just go there? Bill Maher had dinner at the White House the other night and came away, sort of pleasantly surprised. Donald Trump's definitely willing to hear everyone out. But if you're doing something that actually is problematic to the point where you're leaking, et cetera, and that's what we don't know here, he's just been put on leave and that information coming to us first from Reuters. Also, I should point out that it's being reported in Newsweek as well. So the Newsreaks reporter, this is how we have the picture actually of the gentleman.

I believe Newsweek had that. It's kind of a big deal. This is important right now. It's why, for example, they got rid of even the FBI head. Remember in New York, James Dennehy? Because he was telling people, no, no, no. The administration wanted you to dig in and give names of the people. that were investigating him at the FBI, I don't want you to do that. And I think that there was

some sense that, you know what, we need our own team here. We need our own team, the same as we'd have for a CEO. So this is a big deal. Again, just breaking right now, the advisor to Pete Heggseth at the Pentagon, Dan Caldwell, he is being put on leave as they investigate his role in all of this. Do we now know who had a hand in the Signalgate thing? I don't know as we do. I still go back to the phone itself. Remember when Mike Waltz said he has no idea how that reporter from the Atlantic ever got in his phone because he had never met him, Jeffrey Goldberg, he had never known him, he'd never had a conversation with him. And so you wonder, like, can somebody get into the phone itself, do something and then add that person to the chat? I don't know the answer to that,

but I'll tell you who should have known the answer to that. The head of the NSA, for sure. So this is a big investigation, and I don't think we've seen the end of it, shall we say, just yet. We have more to say and more to talk about on that. But back to what we were discussing, because I have this mind-blowing soundbite. I want to show you right now. I'll tell you, I don't know.

Like maybe the FCC is getting to ABC or something. I don't really know the answer because I thought I was here in. things. Whoopi Goldberg on this show today actually sort of sided with Donald Trump. You know how we've said all along that the Department of Education got too big and it became effectively worthless, right? Jimmy Carter put it in and they thought that, oh, we can put all these standards in and we'll have all these requirements and we will have better educated kids as a result. Only thing is, the kids are not better educated. And so you had a lot of money going to the top, going to the system, going to the federal government, and not to the kids. Well, somehow,

Whoopies had an epiphany. Here she is on the view today. Agreeing with Trump, notice how quickly they get out of her. The music comes up and everything, but listen carefully. What we have to always do, regardless of who you voted for, you still got to pay your rent, you still got to take care of your kids, you still got to take care of your business. And maybe some of what's happening, like, you know,

they're trying to take apart the Department of Education. Yes. Maybe that is a good thing, because maybe it will force, us to make sure that our kids actually get what they need. Maybe it'll force us to go to our state and say, listen, I want to make sure, since you're taking all this money from my taxes, I want to make sure that my kids get exactly what they need. I don't have to wait for the government to do it. We can do it. This is now in our hands. This is in our hands, and it's going to be tough, and nobody wants to do it because it's a bitch. But you know what? If it comes

down to your survival, this is what you got to do. You got to take care of what you got to take care of. And they're telling me that we're going to be right back. Wow. That was interesting. I mean, what was that? Well, for one thing, I don't think you can say that word on network television. That's an FCC fine in and of itself. What was that? I mean, what kind of world are we living in when Whoopi Goldberg actually is willing to actually say that something coming out of this administration makes sense. I think it's great. Look, I think it's healthy. This doesn't have to be partisan, guys. Like, if you have good ideas, so be it. Recognize a good idea. They don't do that on shows like the view. It's like if Donald Trump says this, we think this. By the way, she's the same woman the other day

who said that she thought there was no issue, exporting criminals, that we needed to do. And deport the criminals. She actually said that as well. That was the other time she agreed with him. So I don't know what's going on. Is it the FCC investigation? Are they really kind of inflicting enforcing change? Are they looking now for opportunities where they can agree with the administration? I would just say like in fairness, it's been so over the top. You can't just disagree 99.9% of the time. It shows that there's no intellectual capacity, frankly, if you can't see the other side and recognize, hey, you know, maybe it does make sense to deport criminals, or maybe it makes sense to say, hey, states, you know what, this is in your hands. You know what's best for your kids. You take on the Department of Education. Heck, you'd think that states like Washington would just welcome it, right? Because then they won't have to worry about money being held up over pronouns. Seriously. There's a silver lining in anything. Whoopi finally seems to be seeing it, and everybody's freaking out. They didn't even give an opportunity for anyone to respond to her. They just went straight

to break. Very interesting. Perhaps telling, I don't know if it's the FCC investigation. I don't know if she's, I imagine she is being told. I shouldn't say, I don't know. I do know that she's being told, hey, cool it. You know, we've got to like rein this thing in. It's gotten out of control. I mean, they've got the conspiracy theories, much like Rachel Maddo has the conspiracy theories. And ABC doesn't really print money anymore. So, again, when you talk about hefty salaries and a lot of baggage that goes with it, perhaps she's doing what she thinks is best for her. I don't know the answer, but I will say this.

This administration is just so darn sick of it. They're so darn sick of hearing of the media bias. There was this wild exchange, like crazy wild. And I feel bad that we didn't get it on the air yesterday because it was sort of happening in real time. But I promised I would bring it here today because I couldn't believe what we saw. Effectively, the CNN reporter, Caitlin Collins, keeps going to Trump. And fine, okay, you're doing your job. You need to understand why it is that you can deport criminals.

And so she keeps pushing this and pushing this. And like they go around the room and basically everyone tries to explain the law to her, but it doesn't really go that well. So this is just a huge dressing down. I got to play it for you. I got to play it. It's amazing. The man who your administration says was mistakenly deported.

The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador? Well, let me ask Pam, would you answer that question? Sure, President. First and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country. Right now, it was a paperwork, it was additional paperwork

had needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us. The Supreme Court ruled president that if, as El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate him. it, meaning provide a plane. So will you return? And you are doing a great job. Thank you. Did you hear that?

He's like, and you are doing a great job. Thank you, Pam. And then the reporter comes back. It's hard to hear. I realize that because it's, the microphones aren't necessarily attached to them. So we just have these boom mics inside there. But keep listening.

Also respond to that question because, you know, it's asked by CNN, and they always ask it with a slant because they're totally slanted because they don't know what's happening. That's why nobody's watching them. But would you answer that question on El Salvador? Yes, gladly. So as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador. So with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador. So it's very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador

how to handle their own citizens as a starting point. As two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13, when President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization. That meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law, which I'm sure you know, you're very familiar with the INA, that he was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States. So we had a deportation order that was valid,

which meant that under our law, he's not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation. This issue was then by district court judge, completely inverted and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and flying back here. That issue was raised to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither Secretary of State nor the President could be

compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador, who again is a member of MS-13, which is I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murders women, murder as children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world, and I can promise you if he was your neighbor, you would move right away. So you don't plan to ask for it. And what was the ruling in the Supreme Court, Steve?

Was it 9-0? Yes, it was a 9-0. In our favor. In our favor, against the district court ruling, saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States. As Pam said, the ruling solely stated that if this individual at El Salvador's sole discretion was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time. No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador.

That is the president at El Salvador. Your questions about it per the court can only be directed to him. I asked President Bucheli, what is your, can President Bukle, weigh in on this? Do you plan to return him? Well, I guess, I'm supposed to have suggested that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States, right? How can I smuggle? How can I return him to the United States? If I could I smuggle him into the United States or whether I do it of course, I'm not going to do it.

It's like, I mean, the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist to the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States. But you could release him inside of the United States. Yeah, but I'm not releasing, I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country. I mean, we just turned the murder capital of the world to the safest country in the Western Hemisphere, and you want us to go back into the releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world. And that's not going to happen.

Well, they'd love to have a criminal, you know, against you like. I mean, there's a fascination. They would love it. Yeah. These are sick people. Mark, do you have something to say about? Yeah, I mean, Stephen Island, I don't understand what the confusion is. This individual is a citizen of El Salvador.

He was illegally in the United States and was returned. to this country. That's where you deport people back to their country of origin, except for Venezuela that wasn't refusing to take people back of places like that. I can tell you this, Mr. President. No, the foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court. And no court in the United States has a right to conduct a foreign policy of the United States. It's that simple. End of story. Right? Except for the media. The media is really on the side. Okay, well, we've got to protect this guy. This guy, Garcia, who was one of the 260 suspected gang members that were deported, he had actually, back in April of 2019, the court ruled that he was actually a member of the notorious gang MS-13. So that was the first ruling, and Bondi has pointed to both of these immigration court decisions as evidence that he was tied to MS-13. That first ruling, April 24, 2019 denied him bond in part because, quote, the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.

And then in December, a Board of Immigration Appeals, that ruling upheld the denial of the bond, the denial of the bond because he's a member of MS-13, although they didn't get into judgment over whether he was, in fact, a member of that gang. Later in October, an immigration judge barred the feds from removing Mr. Garcia while his asylum applicant. in which he argued he could face prosecution, persecution from groups like Barrio 18 gang was under consideration. So let me get this straight, right? Like we've got somebody who the U.S. government says is part of one gang. And then he goes, and he's being held for that because they're not going to give him bond because he's an MS-13 gang member. They got him on something, right? And then they wouldn't give him bond. But then he comes back and he said, no, I have to apply for asylum because I'm a member of this gang and the other gang is going to

take me down. I mean, what's going on? Like, we're now becoming like a refuge for gang members? I don't think so. So fast forward here. Garcia gets deported along with other MS-13 gang members back to his native El Salvador. Okay? So he's back home now and he's being put in a prison. And then Rubio is saying, but it's not my problem anymore, right? Like, what's the issue? It's now going back to El Salvador. And the El Salvador president is saying, no, we're not going to release him. We're not going to send him back to the U.S. And it's believed, for my sources, they may have some stuff on him in El Salvador. So it's kind of wild and convoluted, but it seems pretty instinctive here. You know, you're here illegally. You get in trouble. They find out you're part of MS-13.

The next thing you know, you're applying for asylum because in Biden's weird world, gang members, We're like applying for asylum because the other gang might take them out. Yeah, whatever, okay, we don't want any gang members. We want good people coming here. This is what then led to kind of this brouhaha on Fox with Stephen Miller trying to put this very, very clearly out that the whole story had been manipulated. The Supreme Court, for goodness sakes, the Supreme Court said, yes, the president has this authority under the 1798 Aliens Enemy Act.

So why is this such an issue because the media is making it an issue? Number one, DOJ said a federal court cannot compel the executive branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation. So your argument is that you don't have to bring him back home, but will you? So I want to correct, I hate to do it, Bill, but I got to correct you on every single thing that you said because it was all wrong. First, we won the Supreme Court case. Clearly, 9-0. A district court judge said, unconscionably, that the president and his administration

have to go into El Salvador and extradite one of their citizens, an El Salvadorian citizen. So that would be kidnapping. We have to kidnap an El Salvadorian citizen against the will of his government and flying back to America, which would be an unimaginable act in an invasion of El Salvador's sovereignty. So we appealed to the Supreme Court and it said clearly no district court can compel the president to exercise his Article 2 foreign powers in any way whatsoever. DOJ called me after that Supreme Court ruling and they said, it's amazing. We won this case, 9-0. We are an excellent standing here.

So this has been portrayed wrong for 72 hours in the media. They said the most a court could ever compel you to do would be to facilitate return, which would basically mean if El Salvador voluntarily sends him back, we wouldn't block. him at the airport. We would put him back into ICE detention, and then he would be deported either back to El Salvador or somewhere else. The Supreme Court said that is the most the government can be expected to do. So we won the case handily. The misreporting on this has been atrocious. Secondly, he was not, no, it's important. He was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador. So do you still believe he is a legal alien from El Salvador? Hold on this is important. In 2019, he was ordered deported. He is a final removal order. from the United States. These are things that no one disputes.

Where is he from? El Salvador. Where is he a resident and citizen of? El Salvador. Is he here illegally? Yes. Does he have a deportation order? Yes.

A DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing incorrectly that this was a mistaken removal. It was not. This was the right person sent to the right place. Now, some have said, well, but he had a thing called a withholding order.

So a withholding order means you've been ordered deported, but an immigration judge is saying you cannot go back to a particular country. Here's the thing. If you are a member of a foreign terrorist organization, you cannot have a withholding order. Since he's in MS-13, there is no withholding order. Furthermore, the gang that he is accused of being persecuted by doesn't exist anymore in El Salvador. The 18th Street gang is gone. So you have any illegal alien from El Salvador? Bill, where are we supposed to send the illegal alien from El Salvador? To what country?

You haven't even allowed me to ask you a question. Are you convinced he is still a member of MS-13? That was your original charge. Yes. But here's the thing, Bill. Yes, but not only am I convinced of it, not only is El Salvador convinced of it. Bill, he's an illegal alien from El Salvador with the deportation order. So his only options in life, Bill, his only options in life are to be deported to El Salvador,

or to be deported to some other country. That's it. He has a deportation order. So, Bill, you tell me, what country should we deport him to? Tell me, please, tell me. So Marco Rubio on Sunday morning said this. On Saturday night, another 10 criminals. Bill's like moving on, moving on.

I'm going to make a point on this in just a second because everybody's getting so worked up that we're sending people that are here that are involved in criminal activity and are here illegally to begin with, everybody's like worked up that we're sending them home to their home country where their home country can make a decision because they say oh their home country has such a bad prison system so wait like you're supposed to come to our prison system as a criminal because we're going to treat you better come on come on here's none of our why does it hit me so hard so i have known about this prison for a long time because i read and i follow latin american news and this place is as bad a prison as can possibly exist. And the idea that we are sending, that the United States of America is sending innocent people just so that Donald Trump can make this point about how he is deporting criminals and animals and monsters, as he calls them, to this prison, when it is a lie. It is a lie. And I, you know, I just, and I told you. I'm just, Anna Navarro. Oh, she knows all.

about the prison system, right? Because she's done all that NPR reading. For goodness sake. So I was looking at some numbers. There are estimates that there are some 200,000 people in the prison system. I went and check that in El Salvador. It's actually perhaps by way of chat GPT, more like 110,000. So I had heard 200,000. But we knew that about 300 people had died in incarceration since this would have been over two-year time period since the prisons were up and running. And, you know, when you look at it, 300 people, I mean, you don't want anybody to die, right, but 110,000 in the system, that's actually a pretty small percentage. Like, I want to say, like, 0.15% or so over, over two years. I mean, it's probably 0.27% of the 110,000. But, you know, if you're just going year by year,

then it may actually, I don't know if it was, because I only have the numbers, the 300 for the multiple years that the prison has been in business. But if I compare and contrast it, say, to U.S. prison systems where we had somewhere in 2020 around 6,182 people dying, then you're actually looking at a much higher rate of death among people who have been incarcerated here in the U.S., then you may be in El Salvador. or one source that I spoke to, who invests heavily in Latin America, was actually explaining that the El Salvadorian prisons, while they get this really, really bad rap, they're trying to make a business out of it. It's actually, as far as prisons go, this person's point was,

it may not even be as bad as some of the U.S. ones. So I think it's really important to understand that and know that everything that they're saying is colored by their utter distaste, dislike, and hatred for one Donald Trump. I don't think this is about Trump trying to say, oh, wow, I deported 260 people. I think it's mainly that he's trying to make sure nobody comes here. And if you do come here, guess what?

You're really rolling the dice. How else do you think he's getting these things down? I mean, if you, we're down like 98% in border crossings. Because I think a criminal who wants to come here and engage in crime he's going to realize there's a good shot that he might just be deported to one of those El Salvadorian prisons. But, you know, the Democrats are on the wrong side of this one. Again, you get the senator from Maryland who's all worked up about the Garcia guy saying, oh, I got to go save him. He's like ready to bust into the El Salvadorian prison. Kid you not? He said so today. Now, just remember,

this guy, when the Maryland woman died at the hands of an illegal migrant, horrible situation, He didn't have anything to say back then. He was just mad because, you know, the Republicans wouldn't approve all the money that Biden wanted for the border. You know, keep in mind, they're cutting down on border crossings to the tune of down 98% with no extra money. No extra money at all. Anyway, here is Van Hollen, the senator saying he's going to go duke it out in the El Salvadorian prison. I saw the comments of President Bucaly, and I look forward to meeting with them. I've requested to meet with them.

I reached out to the ambassador here to ask to meet while he's here. here. But I've also made clear if we can't meet here, I do intend to go to El Salvador to discuss the reliefs of this individual who is illegally detained. A Maryland man, who's the father of three, in a notorious prison in El Salvador. And I believe the president of El Salvador will recognize why it's important to allow him to return to the United States of America, because it is it is absolutely unjust and illegal to have this Marylander detained one more day in a notorious prison in El Salvador. Of course, President Trump could have just said, you know, bring him home. Of course he could have done that. But this is an administration that has lied about,

Mr. Brigo Garcia, right? The vice president of the United States tweeted out that he had a criminal record. That was a lie. They're just lying. They've gotten calls. hotline. They don't want to admit it. And they have an obligation to bring him home. But I will say the president of El Salvador should not now take it upon himself to say that he is detaining him for one more day because that is kidnapping. I understand that the attorney general said that we would provide a plane to bring him home. So all the president of El Salvador has to do now is hand over and release an innocent man and let him come home to his family. He's a Marylander, despite the fact that he's here illegally. And according to the courts, they're thinking

that this stuff is made up. No, no, no. The court actually said that they couldn't allow him to be released out on Bond because he was a member of MS-13. I mean, I just don't really know what to say. I think that they've kind of lost the story at this point, right? They're so far gone. Oh, we've got to save the innocent guy, the member of MS-13, per our courts. Okay, there wasn't Pam Bondi making that up. This is why they weren't going to release him to be able. So we sent him home. And you're accusing the El Salvadorian president of kidnapping. I mean, this is just getting a little weird, okay? Like, I know you guys don't know what end is up politically, but let Pam help you understand it.

Now, the president was musing about sending some of the most horrible people in this country down to that mega prison. You know, people that push ladies into subways and hit old ladies with baseball bats to the head. Is that legal to do? Is that something you're allowed to do? Well, Jesse, these are Americans who he is saying who have committed the most heinous crimes in our country. And crime is going to decrease dramatically because he has given us a directive to make America's safe again. These people need to be locked up as long as they can, as long as the law allows. We're not going to let them go anywhere. And if we have to build more prisons in our country,

we will do it. Right. That's what I thought. And now I think... Yeah, just don't tell the media that, right? The media is going absolutely wild. They cannot accept this. I want to point out, we do have some breaking news that's just coming in. It looks as though the judge has made it clear that actually, again, there is authorization. Well, I mean, the Supreme Court said this, right, guys? I mean, the Supreme Court in the United States of America has the, has said that the president has the authority to do this because of the alien, the alien act. But this is, this is new. Another one, Judge, it seems that, well, we'll see if this news is, uh, judge drops case. against man Bondi called MS-13 leader allows time to challenge deportation.

Okay, so that's really interesting. It's getting super political, guys. You now have this just coming in. The judge is dropping the case against this man, Garcia, that Bondi is saying was an MS-13 member, because don't forget, that's what the court had decided. I'll go back to, I'll go back to this. First of all, like he had been caught trying to come.

into the country, and I guess this is what this initially was about. And an order handed down on April 10th, the High Court directed the administration to facilitate Abrigo Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. Oh, this is the latest, right, to ensure that the case is handled as it would have been. They don't like that is somehow somebody who was in the U.S. illegally, now getting deported and being in the hands of El Salvador. And I guess I just give back to what both Marco Rubio was saying as well as Stephen Miller, that you have somebody who is believed to be an enemy of the state because he was believed to

have been in MS-13. So how are you, how are you like saying that? How are you trying to say like, we don't have the authority? I'm really, I'm really perplexed by it, really, really, really, really perplexed by it. And I think that this is actually what's really going to hurt the Democrats overall, because there's just this lack of reality, right? Total lack of reality. I mean, the AOC is queen of this lack of reality.

And yet you got her assembling some kind of war chest. Check this out. My friend Eric Doherty already said here on Twitter just moments ago that she's raising so much money. She's raising a whopping $9.6 million in her first quarter of 2025. has 8.2 million on hand. He's quoting Punchbowl, which is one of the political publications. This is kind of amazing. So what? AOC is going to take over? I'll take that one all day, frankly, because she doesn't get it, right? Like, she's out there arguing for the Maryland men's return. She's saying you can't deport people. She's in sync with Leticia James and Kathy Hochle and somehow

criminals now we need to protect, including those at Rikers Island. It's concerning, though, that so many Democrats really see her as the next up and coming head of the party. Don't forget, when the party was polled, like Democrats around the country, the majority of people saw AOC as their leader, which is really wild. And by the way, I don't know as the rest of the Democrats are on board with this one. Here's one Democrat congressman on CNN earlier today being posed this question. Who do you really think is head of the party? And so who would you say is the leader of the Democratic Party right now? Well, the leader in the House of Representatives is Hakeem Jeffries, and he will be the next speaker of the House.

He's earned the voice, though, of the Democratic Party. Like, is that who the Democrats should be rallying around pushing forward? That's who should be driving the message? Well, I think we've got a whole new generation of talent, people who are speaking out on economic issues. I gave a speech in Cleveland on economic patriotism, our vision of how we're going to bring prosperity in manufacturing back around the country. But the most urgent issue is to stand up against the attacks on the rule of law, on the Constitution, on universities,

and then to make sure that we elect Hakeem Jeffrey's Speaker of the House, so we have one check on Donald Trump's unconstitutional actions. Do you think in terms of just political strategy? Obviously, you all have a lot of priorities. I hear you about what you're trying to do. But in terms of political strategy, is that step one, getting the House back in the, terms? I think step one is to stand up for the Constitution. We have people in this country who are getting knocks on doors from police, who are not getting due process, some of them

deported, some of them deported to an El Salvador prison where they're potentially being tortured. And that needs to stop. You have the Supreme Court 9 to 0 saying that this is unconstitutional, that the Trump administration needs to facilitate the return. This is a huge crisis. I'm I think every Democrat needs to be speaking out about that. Democrats need to be standing up for President Garber at Harvard University, who had the courage to stand up to the administration's basic takeover of freedom of speech. So we have an immediate issue right now, which is standing up for the Constitution. You just don't know who's running the party.

Okay. This is what they're going to sell, right? We've got to stand up for all the people who are here illegally and may have committed crimes. And God forbid, we deport them. that can't happen, right? That's one angle. And oh, we got to stand up so that everybody can practice their protests and go rah-rah Hamas on Ivy League campuses on tax-favored dime. I don't think so, guys. I don't think so. And so, you know what? We're going to talk some sense into them. I don't really care what the Democrats do. You know what? They can do this all day long because it just

means good news for Republicans and therefore, hopefully lower taxes and a more prosperous economy. But here's James Carville, and he gets it, and he knows what these people like AOC and others have done to the party. And he's like, I don't want you here. Go take your little pronouns and go for a walk. Buy. Don, watch. So maybe we need to have a schism. Maybe you've, you've got plenty of different justice party, the working families party, the socialist party.

The only thing I've asked is just don't use the word democratic in any title that you have. because most Democrats that I know are running for office don't want you, your name, don't want you to be part of the deal. Yeah, they would, sure, they would be glad to take your votes. Who wouldn't? Everybody wants to get as many votes as they can. Maybe you come up with your own name.

And by the way, nothing against after the election. You can sit down and do, like it's done in parliamentary governments or governments around the world. You sit down and you say, okay, we want to be part of a government majority, and we have these things that we want you to do to bring us in, and we have negotiations, and we figure a way that we can live with different parties, different titles, but under the same general philosophical route, as I've always said, been very clear, that most of the things that the faculty lounge are identity left wants, 85% of them by want to,

We'd like to expand opportunity of people. We'd like to expand people that have health care. We'd like to do more to help young voters. We think that environmental problems are totally crushing that we face. We look solutions there. We think income inequality is a terrible thing, and we've got to do certain things to address it. Like, okay, raise taxes on incomes over $400,000 here.

Raise the minimum wage. These are the things that we can work on. I don't think we can work together on pronoun politics. I don't, I think that. Thank you. You know what? I don't want to work with you guys anyway. But at least somebody in the Democrat Party has the smarts to say,

we can't work together on pronoun politics. You're not, this election did not teach you how damaging that is. I don't think there's anything that I can tell you. And you say this guy is stuck in another century, not another decade. And he represents nothing to do with the future of our movement. I can accept that. You're not really going to hurt my feelings. So maybe we could have a kind of amical split here.

And we'll go to Post in 20, 26, because you don't have a run, they're never run against a Republican. Okay. All they do is run against other Democrats. I don't quite understand why you're so anxious to have the word Democrat in the description of what you do, but maybe we can have a amical split here. And you go your way, and we go our way, and after the election, we come together and see how much common ground we can find. Hey, that would be great, right?

I mean, Carville is telling AOC to get lost as she's striving to be head of the Democrat Party. Again, as somebody who would rather have lower taxes, less regulation, a more vibrant economy, you know, you kind of had me at taxes. I say that on tax day, right, April 15th. And so I'd love to see somebody like AOC because I don't think she's going to get to first base. but Carvel's smart. He knows darn well. You know what? Trump swooped in,

he got a lot of that magabase that would have otherwise been for, I don't know, a guy like Bernie, a guy like Bernie who can't stand the idea of turning over the reins to AOC as well. I wonder what that's about. Is he really a little bit more Carvel than we think? Or is he just a jealous old man

that can't stand the idea of AOC taking over things? Remember the other day on ABC News? He sat down and did that big interview, but yet he wouldn't finish his questions. Once AOC came up, it was like, woo, Bernie, touchy. Would you like to see her joining the Senate? Right now, we have, as I said, just a whole lot of people in the Congress. Okay, Jonathan, thanks me. Wait, I got one more.

I got one more. This is important. Well, I ask you, okay, you know, you want to do nonsense, do nonsense. No. I don't want to talk about inside the Beltway stuff. I got 32,000 people. I was just asking you about AOC because she was out there. No, fine.

But I don't want to talk about it. about this. What was the last question? I was just going to ask you one more question about you. I mean, that's all. I was literally your last. What is your question? I mean, it's easier to understand. Oh, because he just wants to like talk about himself. You see, you see, so he is kind of just a bitter old man who doesn't want to turn over the reins. I mean, those are the progressive. So if Carvel's smart, he gets rid of Sanders, he gets rid of AOC, and he gets rid of a woman who wants to take AOC's place. You know who wants to take aOC's place? you know who wants to take AOC's place and you know who's actually gaining on her.

And I consider this a good thing for Republicans because, wow, this woman can't come near the Oval Office. She is not electable at all. She can barely speak. And she clearly doesn't have a lot of intelligence because somehow she thinks that Trump's migrant policy is the reason for inflation. I'm just going to remind her that inflation, the last two reports, has come down considerably. So like no inflation right now, not to say we don't get it with some tariffs, et cetera. But in the here and now, from the most recent data we've seen, there's actually been no inflation.

So tell me how she concocts this one. Jasmine Crockett, then I'm talking about. So I am telling you that this is a failed thing, but we've got to do better to connect the dots and let people know the reason you can't afford a home is because of these failed immigration policies. The reason you're not going to be able to afford your food is because of these. failed immigration policies and the same can go for the hospitality industries where we have so many of those in the hospitality industry that are saying they do not have the workers that they need right now hmm so i'm just curious like what is the method to the madness is it like elan said you just keep

bringing people here and giving them social security numbers and hoping that they can vote and New York court said, no, you're not going to have 800,000 people that are non-citizens voting in New York state elections. But you kind of wonder, like, what's the thinking here? I realize they want to seem like, oh, we're good people. We're standing up for the little guy, the little guy who's a member of MS-13. Again, per our own court records. Like, they wouldn't give him bail because they said he's a no member of MS-13. What the heck?

And yet she's out there spinning this. Now it gets weird. So I had to go around the country and educate people about what immigrants do for this country or the fact that we are a country of immigrants. Right, right. The fact is ain't none of y'all trying to go and farm right now. Okay, so I'm lying. Raise your hands.

You're not. You're not. We're done picking cotton. You can't pay us enough to find a plantation. Oh. So she's willing to kind of say things in a way that maybe AOC was considered new and young and fresh and different. Now you get Crockett on the scene and she'll just like kind of get crazy on you and really not make any sense. And somehow that's what's valued now?

I'm going to go back to Carvel. You know, the Democrat Party were smart. They would actually try and find real ways to solve real problems. And it wouldn't mean jumping on a plane to go down to the El Salvadorian prison to Duke. out with the prison guards for the guy who was a known member of MS-13 and here illegally to begin with. Okay, that's where you kind of, you lose people. You really do.

You lose people. Again, just in court documents, we have seen that he was, one, illegally in the country and two, wasn't, was under consideration, was in court to begin with because, quote, the evidence shows that he's a verified member of MS-13. And they denied him bail in 2019 after he was arrested on something else. I mean, I just, I think you guys have completely lost your way. So what? Latisha's going to rescue you. Latisha James coming in saying she can rescue the Democrats and the country from one Donald Trump because she's getting an idea for a new lawsuit. Uh-huh. This is what she's investigating right now. Insider trading. Possible.

insider trading for Donald Trump. Because remember the other day, he said, buy, buy, it's a good opportunity. And the markets were tanking. They tanked like two times, right? It was getting kind of ugly. I mean, people thought my Twitter account had been hacked because I was like, do something. The 10-year treasure yield is at 4.5%. It sounded 4.3% today, so that's good. But we were getting word, something called, without boring you too much, a basis trade that was kind of imploding. So when the basis trade was going to implode, it meant, you know what, the bond markets were kind of, you know what, upped. And that meant that it was going to be really, really ugly. And before you say, oh, well, who cares about Wall Street? I'm just going to say it, you know what?

You think you don't care. But all those companies employ a lot of people. And you think you don't care. But, you know how you borrow money, whether it be on your credit card or for your home loan? That's all dictated by what's going on in the Treasury market. So if we have to pay a whole lot more interest on our debt. If people don't want to buy our debt, if there's some kind of implosion and nobody trusts our debt, that's not good for us. Okay? That's just not good for us, which is why you saw a little bit of a pivot. I think Donald Trump is very flexible on this stuff. But somehow they're turning that into insider trading, courtesy of one Letitia James. So again, she's out with this big new thing saying, I am going to look at insider trading. She confirmed it to the New York Post.

I'm showing you here the article this just coming out moments ago saying that she is scrutinizing whether insider trading took place, you know, in connection with this 90-day pause on customized reciprocal tariffs that were announced last week. So again, he came out with the whole plan. It was like pretty onerous, right? Like even countries like Switzerland that charge zero tariffs for us were getting hit with 30-some-odd percent. And then when everybody freaked out, he pivoted. Because you know what? It was the right thing to do. And now she's going to hit them with insider trading? Oh, it was just a ruse. It was just a big scam. We just wanted to see if we could make a little money off all you. Come on. The examination is in its preliminary stages, not yet a full-fledged probe, according to James's office when she spoke to the New York Post. They write, it was not immediately clear whether specific individuals and companies were subject to the review, which was first reported by CNN. Don't forget, shortly before the markets opened on April 9th, the indices were in a free fall because there was all this uncertainty, right? I mean, I said it. I was on, actually, with Steve Ford, and Steve Moore, a couple of my friends on more money.

It's a show on ABC Radio. Actually, not ABC as an ABC. It was a New York radio show. Katz Matitas, I think, owns the channel. Anyway, we were like, they're probably going to have to do something, like a 90-day pause. Because realistically, like, even if you want to put all this stuff into place today, how are you going to do that, right?

Like, everybody has to negotiate a trade agreement. You've got all these countries and all these different places. Like, let's just be logical about it. A 90-day pause makes sense. But the markets were tanking. Then he announces the 90-day pause, but not before sending that truth, social, tweet, truth, whatever you want to call it. So now she considers that insider trading. I don't know. I mean, that sounds to me like, you know, if you're watching that, if you're watching that, you're like looking at the triple queues, that's the NASDAQ going way down. And it kind of seems

like, you know, you want to buy when volatility goes up, right? Buy, low, sell, high. That's the idea. Not that we're out of this mess, right? This could just be beginning for all you know, right? This could be like the moment, you know, after Bear Stearns and they thought everything was cleaned up, and then you had Lehman Brothers come along. But no, that's not going to stop them. Here's AOC taken on the mantle, of course. Trump seems to be doing, you know, from tweeting people to buy stock, and then later announcing his development on taxes. If people are pissed about insider trading here at the House, look at what's happening at the White House right now and with the Republican Party.

Do you think he knew what he was doing when he sent out that message about stocks before he made the announcement? It sure seemed like he did. I don't think that it was a coincidence. I don't think that Trump just coincidentally said buy stocks and then shortly later made an announcement that dramatically inflated and dramatically raised a lot of these asset prices. And, you know, I've heard murmurings on the floor that there may have been people that knew that this was coming.

And I'm very interested in seeing some of the stock disclosures that come out in when those reports are doing. do. And I'm very interested in what members of Congress have been buying in trading stocks in the last 24 hours prior to this tariff announcement. Hmm. Well, you know, we've talked about this before. Frankly, members of Congress should not be trading stocks at all. Let me just say that. Like, they need to put it in a blind account, right, or managed account, and they should not have any say over any of it. Period. Full stop and a story. So she's not wrong on that. But to somehow allege that he's involved in insider trading, I mean, this one floors me because he told the

world, okay? He's like, it's a great time to buy. It's not like he was calling his friends and calling this one and that one. Oh, you're going to do this. No, no, no. He told everyone, hey, it's a great time to buy. By the way, he did that. Not to say he calls the bottoms or anything, but didn't he do that? Like the worst day ever for the market. It was like a total bottom in the market in April of 2020, and he did the same thing. He was like, oh, now is a good buying opportunity. Oh, you know, hey, maybe you need to get too social or stay on your Twitter account and figure that one out. Here is some moron in the House, again, trying to suggest that it is market manipulation. These guys are unbelievable, anything that they can do to get him, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

On the possible insider trading and market manipulation, you are one of the people who have been calling for an investigation into the president, those around him. Where do you see evidence to warrant an investigation? Do you think there will be one? Well, to be clear, market manipulation is fraud. It is a felony. And when you look at the facts, and that is why I am joining with my colleague, Representative Terry Sewell, who is the ranking member of the Oversight Committee for Ways and Means, along with 131 House Democrats calling for a full investigation, an investigation that wants to look at how Donald Trump

tanked the market with tariffs, then spiked it with the pause, but only after he gave notice to his billionaire France. And the proof is there. $300 billion of additional increases for billionaires and their investments, while Americans whose retirements, whose health savings accounts. Oh my gosh, I can't even hear it anymore. He's such an idiot. I mean, how do we get these people in the House of Representatives? I would really like to know why is America electing idiots? That guy's an idiot, okay? Because he doesn't understand how any of this works. By the way, the billionaires lost a heck of a lot of money too.

If you were smart enough to kind of swoop in and buy right before the trade deal was announced, then, hey, you know, great. But now that's somehow insider trading because Trump said, hey, you know, now is a good buying opportunity? So anybody think that maybe he's, you know, he was actually a little concerned. Do you think this is, I mean, you've got to be really conspiratorial to think that Donald Trump decided I'm going to announce all these tariffs in the Rose Garden so that I can tank the market so that me and my friends can go and buy it up and then, well, we'll be sitting pretty. You really think that that's what went down, buddy, I mean, you guys are just not smart. I know that you are just not smart. I mean, in some ways, I sort of wish it was,

right? Because then you would know, oh, there was a plan, there was a plan. I think, what happened was he announced all these tariffs. There was some confusion between deficits and tariffs. Peter Navarro was in charge of the thing. Peter's always been. I'm just going to tell you, I've known him forever. We used to bring him on as a total lefty to dispute my friend Steve Moore, who's a total capitalist because it would be fireworks Friday on CNBC. I've known him for a long time. I realize he cares about the American worker, but I don't know as he cares about them in the context of the overall system. And before you like, you know, say, oh, the overall system doesn't matter. I'm just going to tell you, yeah, it does, okay? It does. Maybe it should matter less. Maybe we need to

prioritize work. You've heard me say that a zillion times. We do need to prioritize workers and we need to prioritize manufacturing that is high-tech manufacturing that means good jobs and gives us control over our supply chain. But I've told you before I run a deficit with my dry cleaner because guess what? I don't want the dry cleaning equipment in my house. And I don't want to do my own dry cleaning. Thank you very much. So that's a trade deficit that I, in the Trish Regan household, will run all day long, regardless of whether or not they consume podcasts or whether or not they're buying my financial research. I don't really care.

I'm going to take that trade deficit. But if it's something that's important to my operation, say like, you know, running all the computer stuff that I need in my studio on a given day, I kind of want to insource that, right? I don't want to outsource some of that stuff. So you've got to kind of pick and choose on this stuff. But to come out and say, oh, now we're going after him for insider trading. You people are really high.

But you know what? Leticia, something's getting to you clearly, honey, baby. Wow, did you see her? What was this? Two Fridays ago? Woo, she's fired up. You know, why? Because the federal government took away all that money because it turns out DEI stuff, it's not legal.

Again, I apologize. Listen, 57 years after the assassination of, of Dr. King. And Dr. King talked about that stone of hope. And it's that stone of hope that gives me a fire in my belly each and every morning. It's that stone of hope that allows me to wake up and to stand to Donald Trump and to say,

Donald Trump, I'm not afraid of you. It's that stone of hope. It's that stone of hope that gives me power. That's that stone of hope and the belief in each and every one of you to let you know that I'm not going to allow my ancestors, all of them. All of those who died for me to be in this position, I am not going to disgrace them and disappoint them.

I am going to use the law both as a sword and as a shield and challenge Donald Trump. And each and every time he issues an executive and illegal executive order, I am going to stand up to him. Because he represents, to me, sincere, ignorance, and conscientious stupidity. And conscientious stupidity. And so DEI, as far as I am concerned, is more than about just black people.

Let's be honest. That's right. DEI is about paid parental leave. DEI is about disabled children. DEI calls a number, includes a number of categories. So when they talk about DEI, let them know that they're not only coming after us, but they're coming after all of us. And we've got to stand together, a stand in community, stand with this great organization under the leadership of our civil rights leader, Reverend Al Sharpton, who has been a light, a bright and shining light in the darkness. But I don't know

about you. It's that stone of hope that inspires the ocean. Oh my gosh. Okay. So they're going to do whatever they can, even if they can try and pin some kind of false insider trading scandal on him now. And she's going to look to Al Sharpton for guidance. You might want to look for some insider trading by way of Al Sharpton. Just saying, Al Sharpton, who pocketed $500,000 before sitting down to interview one Kamala Harris on MSNBC. He put $500,000 for his charity in his pocket. She writes a check, and then he gets on MSNBC. MSNBC has a few problems, let me just say. I mean, not just Rachel Maddow, but I'd be high. Tailing Rev Sharpton so far out of there, I wouldn't let him near the place. They have to do what they can to restore credibility, and Sharpton is not the way,

nor Letitia James is your little lawsuit into insider trading. But they're thinking, oh, we get the world on our side. We get Harvard on our side. Harvard University, basically giving Donald Trump and the administration the middle finger. They're also, by the way, I should say, giving the Constitution the middle finger. Don't forget, the administration said, you know what, If you guys do not decide to actually honor the law and the Constitution and protect minority students like Jewish students on your campus from this anti-Semitic rhetoric and these protests that are inspired by, you know, we've got to love Hamas for goodness sakes, a known terror organization. Again, the world's like slipping away.

Like, these people are just woo-hoo. Anyway, Harvard's like, no, no, no, no. you're going to take that money away from us? Well, too bad. Too bad. We're going to keep, you know, doing whatever we're doing. We refuse, we refuse to work with you to say that we will protect Jewish students on campus. Excuse me? You're not going to protect the students on campus, like anything they can do to basically be refuting Donald Trump. And oh, sure enough, they got the guy, the senator from Maryland, who's already and fired up to go right down. to the El Salvadorian prison and duke it out with the guards. They get this guy, Van Hollen,

totally on their side, Harvard guy that he is watched. So, Kate, I applaud Harvard's decision not to give in to bullying from the Trump administration. You know, Donald Trump believes in First Amendment rights for himself, but apparently for nobody else. Others, they will punish when there's an exercise of First Amendment rights. I would also point out, Kate, that yesterday, Washington Post just broke a story in the case of Ms. Ostork, right? She was the Fulbright fellow at Tufts. And an internal State Department memo conceded that there was absolutely no basis to claim that she was engaged in anti-Semitic activities. So what you see the Trump administration doing is trying to use this argument that these students are violating an American foreign policy.

that they're engaged in these, you know, acts to undermine U.S. foreign policy, when in many cases, what they've been doing is protesting the actions of the U.S. government and the Netanyahu government with respect to Gaza. So, look, you can agree or disagree with the students. But what the whole, what the purpose of the First Amendment is, is that you don't have the government dictating speech as the Trump administration is trying to do so. I'm going to. glad Harvard is standing up here. Are they really trying to dictate speech or are they actually trying to dictate equality and fairness?

Because when it comes to DEI, look, the Supreme Court had to tell Harvard, you can't not let in one kid because that kid happens to be an Asian American while allowing another kid in who happens to be black because you are trying to sort of write the ship later in life. Later in history, later in the cycle, I've told you the example about New York Philharmonic. You know, they still have a screen in front of your audition, so they don't know if you're male or female, black or white, you know, purple or yellow. They don't know anything. They only hear how you say play the violin. Because when you're playing in the orchestra, if you're not a good violinist or you're playing out of tune, you're going to drag the rest of the orchestra down. So, in classical music today,

they still have the screen in effect. And the screen means that whoever's listening doesn't know who you are, doesn't know whether you're gay or straight or whatever else, right? What gender you are, I think the BBC had like 220 you could pick from. None of it matters. The only thing that matters is how well you play your instrument because you've got to do well for the orchestra. And so Harvard thinks it can re-engineer all this stuff.

Oh, we've got to fix history. No, you know what you do? You fix it by giving kids access to good education, by doing things like what this administration is doing, bringing education to the states, letting it happen on the local level so that people can take responsibility in their local communities.

Because you're not going to make a violinist by saying, okay, we're going to lift the curtain and we're going to choose someone based on skin color. That's just going to drive the whole orchestra down. What you need to do is make sure that that kid that might be a terrific violinist has access when they're three years old. Because let me just tell you, by the time you're six, like if you're not, if you're not like a virtuoso,

it's over for you in the violin. So you'll find out pretty fast. But you've got to get in there to the communities and offer the education and the resources initially. You don't fix it after the fact, Harvard. So their DEI stuff is at this point not constitutional. Their admissions process has not been constitutional, given what the Supreme Court has said. And so, well, they get federal taxpayer dollars to the tune of some

$9 billion. And Trump's like, you know what? I get some leverage and I'm going to use it. And they're flipping out. They're flipping out. So you know what, Harvard? You're not all what you used to be. You're really not. And I think everybody's disappointed in you. Highly disappointed. Markets, by the way, settling out okay enough today. Just as I was coming on the air, I was taking a quick look and I could see that we actually just barely moved into the downside territory, so pretty much ending the day flat. I'll tell you, we got like, we got a rivalry going on. Janet Yellen versus Scott Bessent. Revenge of the Treasury Secretary is Janet Yellen going on Bloomberg, within hours of Scott Besson going on Bloomberg, both communicating a very different message.

Here's Janet Yellen just slamming Bessent and Trump on trade, and I want you to see what Scott has to say when he fires back. Or I wonder your take on whether these negotiations, a 90-day pause for reciprocal tariffs that has been implemented to facilitate them, conversation around exemptions for certain products at the very least. Are those things positive because it indicates the administration is trying to put a finer point, calibrate its tariff policy, or do they actually just so confusion and potentially cause more harm than good? Well, frankly, I think the entire policy has been misguided, the objectives unclear, the rationale for the tariffs that have been announced, really unclear and not at all sensible.

Steps toward removing the tariffs, lowering them, are positive, but we're in a world of tremendous uncertainty. I have no idea what will happen with these negotiations. The announcement about reciprocal tariffs indicated huge tariffs on some countries like Vietnam or the European Union based on bilateral deficits in trade, which is in no way a measure. or indicative of unfair trade practices, it was suggested that these reciprocal tariffs are in response to unfair trade practices that clearly wasn't the case.

And for example, with the European Union, the trade barriers are very, very low. So I must say I'm confused about... Okay, you know what, look, she's not wrong. I think a lot of people were confused, right? Trade deficits and... and tariffs are sort of two different things. But here's what I'm going to say, how inappropriate is it for a former Treasury Secretary to be

out there slamming? I mean, if you feel strongly, you can maybe communicate that on another level, but like, it was a little bit strange. Here's Scott Besson defending his policy and saying, yeah, you know, I've had a hand in this from the beginning, maybe not so much in the very, very beginning when basically I'm just going to tell you guys, because I'm well sourced on this stuff. That was all Peter, okay? So that was all Peter Scott's now in the game.

And listen to what he says. So less than two weeks ago, you and I were talking outside of the White House after what the president called Liberation Day. And you said you weren't part of the negotiations. Now you're leading them. What's changed in these past 12 days? No, no, no. What I said was I didn't construct the actual... The tariff rates.

I've always been part of the tariff policy. I had been focusing on tax. Maybe you want to talk about that later. That's going very well. And now with the trade negotiations, I'm going to be part of that. And the president has hit a 90-day pause button. And we are moving quickly with many of our most important trading partners. So we had Vietnam in last week.

We have Japanese on Wednesday, South Korea next week. So it's going to move fast. But the important thing for your viewers to know is we're sending up a process. And we are going to run that process. It's going to be orderly. And at the end of the day, especially for the most important trading partners, the president's going to be involved. Okay. So that's actually good.

That's good news. All right. Wojo, I love it. Wojo writes, and thank you for your generosity. Asking Yellen about the economy is like asking your friend who has been divorced five times for marriage advice. Yes, because you know what, Wojo's right. She's gotten it all wrong.

She completely got it wrong. Don't forget, this is the woman when re-ture at historic lows, historic lows, and she had the opportunity to finance the future of the United States of America at historically low rates. What did she do? She opted for short-term treasuries. So now, Scott is left cleaning up her mess because, In an higher interest rate environment, yeah, the U.S. has to pay more, which is a drag on all of us. So anyway, Wojo, I think that's funny because, yeah, she's, she's out to lunge on all of it.

I agree. But the markets are trying to digest what all of this means. I think when you hear Scott right there, what he's telling you is one, he's had a big hand in tax cuts. So that's good. We want to get those tax cuts, right? He had less of a hand in this, but now he's very, very actively involved, and he's helping to negotiate these trade deals. So that gives me some relief. But, you know, look, anything can happen. I mean, volatility is back, baby, right? Back, back, back, back, back. Remember to go and check out my financial research firm.

Use code word dollar. That way you get it for just a dollar a month for the first two months. If you want to invest in some of the model portfolios, we have 10 to 15 names in each one of them, three model portfolios. I encourage you to take a look at that. But, you know, there's a lot of volatility right now. And so having some sort of, I think, guide to understanding it all is pretty important. So take a look, 76 research.com. I created this myself with a very dear friend, Rob Horton. We've been watching, by the way, as gold has soared, right? Gold is like up, up and away, up again today, trading at $3,247 an ounce, a gain to 6 tenths of a percent. I actually bought them a little bit when it was lower again yesterday. You've got everybody forecasting big

things. Goldman Sachs and gold's going to 4K. UBS predicting 3,500 by year end. Heck, we may be at 3,500 even earlier. I don't know, but I think that a lot of this is stemming from fears over whether or not the U.S. is going into recession. I sure as heck hope it doesn't, but I can tell you that this is the talk on the street right now. People are getting worried. They wonder about what's going to happen with these trade deals and if that's going to send us into recession. Hassert saying something very different, Kevin Hassert on my former co-host's show there, Larry and I used to anchor a show at CNBC. Great, great guy. Big believer in free trade. Big believer in the importance of the U.S. dollar, King dollar, don't forget.

Here's Kevin Hassert saying, nope, no way we're getting a recession. Speaking of GDP, I think you mentioned GDP in the economy. You're saying there's 100% no chance of recession. Right now, the data are so strong. You've seen the jobs numbers. And we also, as you know, when we're in the White House, we get to talk to CEOs and say, what are you seeing with your orders and so on? And people are really actually euphoric

that things are moving way better than the media would have you believe. And so I'm not saying that you can't have a GDP number that's a little bit disappointing or surprising. GDP Dow still thinks that Q1 is going to be weak. But if you look at the blockbuster jobs numbers that we've been seeing and the low inflation, which takes all the pressure off for the Federal Reserve

to be worried about they're going to have to act because of inflation, that it's really a sweet spot of growth right now. And I think it's going to be even, better in the second or third quarter because Trump policies will be in place. But with the jobs numbers booming and people saying that they're seeing strong sales anecdotally, I don't see a recession at all. All right. There you have it. Kevin has it. Okay. I hope he's right, right? But Goldman Sachs saying that gold may hit 4,000, recession or not, I think that people are looking around and saying, whoa, okay, this could be a little bit diceier, maybe a little bumpier, a little bit more volatility

than I anticipated. So even if it all goes swimmingly well, I'm still trying to, I'm still trying to to protect myself or hedge myself. And that actually leads to an increase. The other thing you're going to think about is the dollar, right? If we are in an environment where the dollar becomes weekend, that leads to higher gold prices as well. And then, of course, the elephant in the room is that you get a lot of countries that are kind of mad at us right now because of these tariff deals, right? And so they're going to say, hey, maybe I don't want to invest in the U.S. as much anymore. if they divert their money into gold, then that also drives gold prices higher. Look, I think it's just the reality of the world in which we live.

I'm not telling you how to invest your money here, but it is likely that, you know, as things become more volatile and people become more frightened or the U.S. dollar starts to lose its place, which, you know, is not entirely inconceivable, then, yes, people are going to continue moving into gold. So go check out my friends over to American Heartford Gold. If you're interested in doing this, if you would like to invest in gold, they'll help you. You can get up to $15,000 actually in free silver by mentioning my name, by mentioning my name, guys. So just go to Trishlovesgold.com, Trishlovesgold.com or send them a text, 65532.

Text my name to 65532. You can call them at 184444-195, 1115. but clearly, you know, gold is something that I think is one of those things that you want for the rainy day, right? I've been telling people to buy it forever, long before I ever had a commercial. I actually really do, and I buy it myself personally. It's getting trickier, but again, these estimates from Goldman or UBS are pretty significant. I would also just give a plug for my own research firm, which is 76 research. Oh, Hugh, thank you for your generosity. I appreciate that you love the show, and I will keep up the good work.

76 research.com. Go check it out. Code word dollar. We just have so much going on right now, so much going on. I really think that this story, if you would, guys, with Pete Hegseth is a good one to keep on watching because I think more is going to come out. We said earlier in the show, we got the breaking news that the Pete Hegseth advisor was out at the Pentagon.

He apparently was escorted out. He was escorted out the other day, and this is very interesting to me in light of the fact that they were trying to figure out just exactly how that whole signal gate thing happened. This is why, in my estimation, you had the former head of the NSA being sent packing because I think there was a lack of trust. And learning, of course, that this guy's out here over at the Pentagon will have to discover more information. in the coming days and we're going to continue to be on it here on the Trish Regan show. So please make sure that you stay tuned for all of that. We've got a live show coming up again tomorrow, big, big stuff. Again, as I say, we're going through some volatile times. Now or never, right? Like, take a look at gold and when you do, use American Heart for Gold because you'll get

that 15,000, up to 15,000 in free silver with qualifying offer. So I encourage you to do that. We've got a big show coming for you again. tomorrow. It is wonderful, wonderful to have you all here. Thank you so much for all your patronage and for all the excitement and for helping me grow this little channel like we've been doing every single day. You guys are the best. I will see you live right here tomorrow.